High CourtsSingle Bench(2013) 03 KL CK 0109

Neelambari Resorts Pvt. Limited vs Commercial Tax Officer (LT) and Intelligence Officer (IB)

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 12 March 2013

HON’BLE JUDGES
Antony Dominic, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) . No. 6753 of 2013 (T)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 351 words

Antony Dominic, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. Petitioner is a dealer under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act. Assessments for the year 2005-06 was completed and penalty was levied against them. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed appeals. During the pendency of the appeals, recovery proceedings were initiated and according to the petitioner, they remitted Rs. 6,01,709/-. The appeals were disposed of by Ext. P1 order, setting aside the order of assessment and remanding the matter for fresh consideration and also cancelling the penalty. In pursuance of Ext. P1 appellate order, the first respondent passed Ext. P2 assessment order finding that Rs. 2,73,636/- is the tax liability of the petitioner. It is also stated that the entire amount has been paid and the balance due is nil. On receipt of Ext. P2 order, contending that the payment made by them has not been given credit to, the petitioner sought rectification by filing Ext. P3 application. Without passing orders on Ext. P3, first respondent revised Ext. P2 assessment order and issued Ext. P4. In this order, in addition to the total tax dues of Rs. 2,20,674/- it is also held that the petitioner is liable for Rs. 79,443/- towards interest. However, it is found that the entire amount has been paid and the balance is nil. On receipt of this order, the petitioner filed Ext. P5 application for rectification. Orders have not been passed in that so far and that made the petitioner to file this writ petition.

2.

If as stated by the petitioner, they have already made payments, credit for such payments cannot be denied. In such circumstances, Ext. P5 filed by the petitioner invoking the provisions of Section 6(6)(a) of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act deserves to be considered. Therefore, I direct the first respondent to pass orders on Ext. P5 with notice to the petitioner and at any rate, within 8 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.